I think it’s less that it’s impossible but more that we don’t have any clue as to what causes differences among groups and many people use such measured differences as evidence for pretty deplorable ideas. There’s much more evidence for social determiners than anything biological. Everyone outside of Africa shares a single ancestor 20,000 years ago. There’s far more genetic diversity within Africa than the rest of the world. That alone is often enough to disprove many theories regarding racial differences since our intuitive understanding of “genetic difference” is so flawed.

Past research has a eugenicist bias because early statisticians were eugenicists seeking evidence for the ideas. I would argue that’s why the social determiners research is valuable to help offset that.

It's closer to 70,000 years. If not, then explain the Australian Aborigines.

Oh good point, sorry got the years mixed up in my head somehow.

> I think it’s less that it’s impossible but more that we don’t have any clue as to what causes differences among groups

I think we have a lot of clues, but scientists who dare say so get heavily censored by largely left-wing media and academics. Even in this forum my comment above got heavily downvoted and flagged.

> Past research has a eugenicist bias because early statisticians were eugenicists seeking evidence for the ideas. I would argue that’s why the social determiners research is valuable to help offset that.

Current bias goes clearly far in the opposite direction, which is bad. There is no "offsetting" with the past which would make an existing bias less bad.

It’s not suppressed though, it’s just that the current evidence points in one way and much less in the other. There are plenty of review papers you can read to see how people weigh the evidence which you can of course disagree with: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00678-r

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000131

Because if you give an inch to that line of thinking, it leads to broader dehumanization and mass tragedy.

No matter how noble your intentions are, if you reject science then you're anti-science. Leftists need to learn to admit that about themselves instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What is true is already so.

Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.

Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.

And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.

Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.

People can stand what is true,

for they are already enduring it.

(Eugene T. Gendlin)

This is a good point.

There are times where lefties will deny science in an effort to avoid mass atrocities, which I think is a fraught situation.

Inversely, righties tend to deny science in order to justify mass atrocities (like industrial-scale animal suffering or cataclysmic extinction events).

These are basically the same thing! /s